Emergent, Jews and Justice

It seems Emergent (the organization) is muddling the Christocentric nature of Kingdom work (see Doug Pagitt's blog as well).  In other words, it looks like Emergent (Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, et al) is treating collaboration on social justice issues between Jews and Christians as equally valid Kingdom work.  Doesn't that give social justice primacy over faith in Christ so that Kingdom work can be done without faith in Christ?  Or is this worse in that Emergent is attributing spiritual life to both groups?

If we are talking about working together to help those who can't help themselves instead of sticking to the same political routes, that's fine.  But it seems much worse than that.  Read some excerpts.

Synagogue 3000 (S3K) and Emergent have announced a ground-breaking meeting to connect Jewish and Christian leaders who are experimenting with innovative congregations and trying to push beyond the traditional categories of "left" and "right." This will be the first conversation that brings them together to focus on the enterprise of building next-generation institutions. 

[...]

S3K Senior Fellow Lawrence A. Hoffman, (_Rethinking Synagogues: A New Vocabulary for Congregational Life_, forthcoming 2006) stressed the importance of building committed religious identity across faith lines. "We inhabit an epic moment," he said, "nothing short of a genuine spiritual awakening. It offers us an opportunity unique to all of human history: a chance for Jews and Christians to do God's work together, not just locally, but nationally, community by community, in shared witness to our two respective faiths."

Brian McLaren...

"We have so much common ground on so many levels...We face similar problems in the present, we have common hopes for the future, and we draw from shared resources in our heritage. I'm thrilled with the possibility of developing friendship and collaboration in ways that help God's dreams come true for our synagogues, churches, and world."

Tony Jones...

"As emerging Christian leaders have been pushing through the polarities of left and right in an effort to find a new, third way, we've been desperate to find partners for that quest," he said. "It's with great joy and promise that we partner with the leaders of S3K to talk about the future and God's Kingdom."

Without a bunch of explanation for how this isn't what it seems to be, I reckon this to be very bad news.

(HT: Mike Noakes)

Comments

[Paul C.]

Hi Steve,

For the sake of space I posted a reply to your post on my blog.

Another Perspective

Blessings,
Paul

[Joe Kennedy]

Yeah I did the same. My response is over on my blog. Please, if you comment, call me Joe. Nobody really calls me Joseph.

The Joseph Kennedy Experiment [or] live... from new orleans

But to summarize... I think you're right, Steve. Bad news.

[Mike Noakes]

As I have said to you and to others, I also think that this is bad news. Tony Jones asked me if I would speak to a group of rabbis when asked, and I would. But I would also clarify my position and my beliefs of salvation.

I don't overemphasize the individual, but there are some aspects of salvation that do require ones own self to make a decision to take on the way of christ (which includes repentence of sins). I think that to do otherwise is foolish and not in the way of the messiah.

Good post!

[Michael Rew]

It looks like you stand at a crossroads. Only one road is a railroad, and a freight train is heading right at you.

[Timmy]

What concerns me is how ecumenism is so innocently packaged and cleverly disguised under "social justice." Of course, there is nothing wrong about being in "conversation" with people of other faith, but it is quite another thing to think that Christiantity can "learn" (Gerald McDermott) from other religions. It carries the assumption that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is not final, the propositional nature of truth is not universal, and that the doctrines of the Christian faith are not really meaningful.
What I am coming to find more and more is that there are many Christians who are ashamed of being Christian. They are embarassed of the uniqueness and supremacy of Christ. To do so is arrogant, intolerant, and disrespectful of other religions. Let us not be so naive to think that the only agenda here is "spiritual commitments in social justice." One central reason why Christians cannot fellowship with Jews is Jesus Christ (Messiah).
McClaren says that "we have so much common ground on so many issues." Oh really? What about the founder of the Christian faith? If the first-century Christians who were persecuted and killed for saying that "Jesus Christ is Lord" knew of this, they would have NOTHING in common with the movement called Emergent. The cost of faithfulness to the gospel and the Christian faith has come at a very high price, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for compromising the essential distinctiveness of the Christian faith. It looks like we want world peace but would rather do without the Prince of peace.

[Paul C.]

Timmy wrote:"but it is quite another thing to think that Christiantity can "learn" (Gerald McDermott) from other religions."

Timmy,

I don't think it's so much that Christianity can learn from other religions. However, Christians can certainly learn from other religions. Christianity is not fallible, we humans are not.

Blessings,
Paul

[Timmy]

Paul,
While I agree with what you said, I wonder what we can learn from other religions. Other paths to God? Spiritual practices? A better human ethic?
All truth is God's truth, but if one argues that Christianity can "learn" from other religions in regards to refining the doctrine of salvation or add to the Christian faith or develop a new "understanding of Jesus" in light of their faith, I absolutely cannot sign on to that.

As MacArthur has said,
"There is no need to seek middle ground through dialogue with proponents of anti-Christian worldviews, as if the truth could be refined by the dialectical method. It is folly to think truth given by divine revelation needs any refining or updating. Nor should we imagine that we can meet opposing worldviews on some philosophically neutral ground. The ground between us is not neutral. If we really believe the Word of God is true, we know that everything opposing it is error. And we are to yield no ground whatsoever to error" (Why One Way?, 62-63.

[Mike Noakes]

Well said, Paul. We, as followers of Christ, have had many shortcomings throughout all of history. Even here in Louisville, Timmy, we have many shortcomings. When walking along the seminary sidewalk, count how many times your "hi" is returned with at least some form of acknowledgement. Also, along the lines of social justice, evangelicals have much work to ctch up on with the rest of the world. There is much that we as individuals and a corporate body can learn from other religions.

We have fallen, so let's get up (by HIS grace).

[Keith]

Question: what is the exact concern that is being expressed in this post and also in the comments? I'm not sure I completely understand it.

If the worry is that the Emergents might be abandoning Jesus Christ, then I would be concerned about it as well. But I'm not sure if I see that in the article. From what I read, the dialogue's goals are: (1) what can we learn from one another? (since we're in similar positions within our respective faiths) and (2) how can we work together on goals that we share in common (most likely justice issues)? That doesn't seem so bad.

In a lecture, I once heard McLaren describe the Kingdom of God this way (rough paraphrase): Imagine you visit a city in Central America. The poor residents of that city get their drinking water from the river that runs through the city. The water is clean up river, but before it gets to the city, a nearby factory dumps pollution in it. The people of the city are harmed by that pollution, but the government has no interest in regulating the factory. As a Christian, part of what it means to do the work of the Kingdom of God is to work in the name of Jesus Christ so that the factory will stop polluting the water of that city.

Is McLaren's illustration descriptive everything that the Kingdom of God entails? No, the Kingdom is more than that. But I think you can make the case that the Kingdom of God includes that. Surely God's kingdom is a place where injustices like that pollution are stopped, and engaging in that kind of work is to really do "kingdom work". It's part--but not the whole--of the Christian mission.

If that's what Tony Jones means by joining with Jewish believers in talking about God's Kingdom, then I don't have a problem with that. I wonder if this conversations sounds more damning than it really is, at least in part, because we're reading a different meaning into the conversation than the Emergent leaders are.

I prefer to play it safe and assume that people are not abandoning Jesus Christ and the integrity of the Christian faith until I have very clear evidence otherwise. I haven't seen any such evidence yet. Feel free to clarify it for me if I'm missing it.

[Timmy]

Two Questions:

1. What can Christianity learn from other religions that God has not revealed in His Word? And if there is anything we can learn from other religions that is profitable in whatever realm, must it not be subject to and stand the test of the authority of God's Word?

2. Do you think that a more trustworthy definition or description of the Kingdom of God should come from the Bible rather than just an illustration? While the illustration is a possible window to the Kingdom of God, what beyond the window are we looking at? How do we know that the Kingdom of God includes what McClaren is illustrating? Because it has sentimental value? Culturally beneficial? Or biblically substantial?

Two observations:

The explanations I hear do not come from expositional truth and tenable arguments as much as a manifestation of good works. But to make a propositional statement with truth-value regarding the Kingdom of God (such as "The Kingdom of God is God’s final, decisive exercising of his sovereign reign – inaugurated in Jesus’ ministry and consummated in Jesus’ return") is discouraged and replaced by "faith in action."

Also, I find it interesting that John Hick (renowned pluralist) has a way of grading religions on the basis of the religious devotee's morality and human ethic. Arguing that every religion has both vritue and vice, they are therefore equal paths to God. Along these lines, if every religion contributed to the cause (pollution), then each religion is salvifically efficacious. Therefore the kingdom of God, if not defined, will be ascribed as ongoing in other religious traditions of the world (which has already been argued in other blogposts regarding this meeting).
I think it is fair to ask for a clear and precise definition by McClaren and Jones on what they mean when they say "Kingdom gf God." When they speak of "God," to whom are they referring? Allah? Jehovah? Jesus? Vishnu? Or All of the above(all refer to the same being - Ineffable Real, Ultimate, Absolute)?

[JACK]

I have to admit, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I'm not terribly optimistic that anything fruitful will develop out of these conversations -- coincides with a general skepticism I have with some of the Emergent trends -- but I don't see what is upsetting people. The single line about next-generation institutions doesn't suggest much of anything. In fact, I think the main way to read it is that each might learn from the other what might be helpful for its own institution, not that there would be joint institutions. All the language on joint projects seems focused on social justice and the general witness of religious commitment in cultures that don't share such commitment. Seems harmless enough.

And I think it's worth emphasizing that this isn't just some other religion. It's our root. Any suggestion otherwise is to ignore the whole of salvation history and to pretend that there is a fissure (versus a continuum) between OT and NT life. I don't suggest to fully understand Paul's words in Romans 11:1-36, but there's no doubt to me that they say that Christians, at a very least, can certainly learn something from Jews. (It suggests a lot more, of course...)

[Trevin Wax]

The watershed moment for Emergent will be whether the organization will or will not affirm the exclusivity of faith in Jesus Christ. It's here that Emergent will either stand against the postmodern mindset or capitulate to current culture. From the looks of this article, I'm afraid the latter is looking more likely.

[Trevin Wax]

The above was supposed to read "exclusivity of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ". Oops.

[Steve McCoy]

Keith, I resonate with what Bob Hyatt said on Pagitt's blog that I am not concerned with working together for social reasons. We can have our debates as to how and how much we should do those sorts of things.

But when "Kingdom" language is thrown in there, something isn't right. Hyatt said, "I do not believe that you can talk about building God’s Kingdom with those who actively reject God’s King."

And how does this make "God's dreams come true for synagogues?" Is McLaren meaning that God's dream for them to believe Jesus is Messiah? I doubt it from what I read in this article.

And notice what Hoffman said. This is an "epic moment" and we are seeing a "spiritual awakening" and now we can have a "shared witness" to our faiths. I'm open for someone in Emergent to say otherwise, but that doesn't look good to me.

[Keith]

Steve, I would agree with you and Bob when you say, "I do not believe that you can talk about building God’s Kingdom with those who actively reject God’s King", IF by God's Kingdom we meant something like establishing the reign of Jesus Christ in the world, the salvation of human beings by Christ, or the work of the church in the world as the body of Christ. But I'm not sure that the Emergent leaders are thinking in those terms when they're saying, "Kingdom of God". From my limited knowledge of their views, I think they would include general acts of social justice as part of (but not the whole of) their definition of God's Kingdom. So, in their eyes, to participate with others in these acts would be a participate in God's Kingdom, at least in part.

Perhaps we can disagree with their description and undersanding of the Kingdom of God. I think that's fair. But by their own definition, I don't see how their beliefs correspond to an abandonment of the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, because by their definition, salvation in Christ and the Kingdom of God are not exactly the same thing.

My point is that when we start measuring their theology by the way they're using certain terms, we first need to understand how they're using those terms and what content those terms have. Otherwise, we may be reading things into those terms that they themselves don't mean by those terms, and thus, we may be attributing meaning to them that they do not intend. I think that might be happening here, although from just this article, I can't be certain either way. No one can. And, as Bob pointed out in his comment, a press release announcing cooperation might not have been the best place to bring up these points about exclusivity, and it's understandable that they didn't.

[Keith]

By the way, I'm not an Emergent apologist and have no interest in being one. I just didn't take the same kind of worries away from this article as others here did, even though I'm on the same page as everyone here on being concerned about anyone who would abandon the exclusivity of Jesus Christ for salvation. I'm trying to explain why that is.

[JACK]

Maybe someone can clarify for me -- is this a reaction to these specific individuals, knowing them, and thus what they probably mean by their words? Or is this a reaction to the notion in general of Christians cooperating and learning from Jews? Because I must admit that I can't tell from the comments and what I read here raises some questions in my mind about just what Baptists think God did with His covenant with His chosen people when they didn't accept the Messiah.

[Paul C.]

Timmy wrote:"What can Christianity learn from other religions that God has not revealed in His Word?"

Hi Timmy,

I think we have to remember that a large part of our own scriptures are Jewish scriptures. Also, we cannot forget that the New Testament tells the story of Jewish people coming into a new understanding of God and what He requires from us through Jesus Christ. When it comes to adherents of Judaism, I think they may be able to teach us a lot about our own faith.

Blessings,
Paul

[Timmy]

Let me make a comment about the Jewish roots. It is true that Christianity has its roots in Judaism and that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew. However, Jesus Himself had much to say about the Jews. For instance:

"Jesus said to them, 'If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I am from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing what your father did.'"

And addressing who specifically their father is, Jesus added,

"If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I cam not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot hear my word. YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND YOUR WILL IS TO DO YOUR FATHER'S DESIRES." (John 8:29-44)

Now, if I said that, I would be shouted off the Internet and screeen off the Emergent blogs I presume. Yet I didn't - Jesus did.

Furthermore, Jesus had something to say about the Jews and the Old Testament. Hear him:

"And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:37-40)

What we can learn from the Scriptures is imparted not by gleanings from Jewish insights but by divine illumination of the Holy Spirit. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE the Old Testament Scriptures and appreciate every jot and tittle in it. Much of the meaning and significance of NT imagery and parable is explained in the OT. However, the Jewish Scripture spoke of Christ Jesus whom they have rejected and crucified. Peter at Pentecost unashamedly declared (and this was not in conversation by the way):

"Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom YOU crucified."
(Acts 2:36)

Peter's response was not acceptance of the Jews because of their Jewish heritage. He preached Christ and him crucified. What was their response? "What must I do to be saved?" They wanted Jesus as "both Lord and Christ." And this was not an emergent version of Judaism, it was the acceptance of Christianity with Jesus as their Messiah and King.

Those who say, "I don't see all this fuss is about," believe this occurance to be innocently contrived. I choose to think otherwise. And this business of putting theology on the backburner which forging ahead with interfaith relations is dangerous. That is exactly what pluralism does. It denies differences in truth-claims of each religion (i.e. Jesus is the Messiah - Christians; Jesus was only a rabbi - Jews) and the foci is rather social actions which surface on all religious fronts.

Those emerging talk about "a third way." This is nothing new of course, but it is interesting to see that this "third way" would rather gloss over the idea of Christianity as "the only way."

[Joe Kennedy]

All of this reminds me of Rob Bell at the end of Velvet Elvis where he talks about changing the world. He reminds us that since the beginning of time God has sought to bring His presence here to Earth. Bell talks about Christians ending their desire to bring people to Heaven, and start desiring to bring Heaven to Earth. In that, he talks about the environment and social justice.

And I think what he said was a good point, but I think these guys at EmergentVillage take that too far by trying to encourage planting "emerging synagogues." Should we then help plant "emerging mosques" or "emerging Hindu temples"? I'm just not entirely sure that's ok. In fact, I'm fairly positive that it's absolutely NOT a good idea at all.

[Timmy]

As far as the Kingdom of God outside of the reign of Christ, the only support for this is Eastern Orthodoxy which rejects the filioque clause that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son. Therefore, the Holy Spirit has his own mission apart from Jesus where he applies general revelation about God through other religions. Consequently, the argument is made that the Kingdom of God exists outside the reign of Christ. Unfortunately, this little if any biblical warrant for this reasoning.

Keith said:
"IF by God's Kingdom we meant something like establishing the reign of Jesus Christ in the world, the salvation of human beings by Christ, or the work of the church in the world as the body of Christ. But I'm not sure that the Emergent leaders are thinking in those terms when they're saying, "Kingdom of God". From my limited knowledge of their views, I think they would include general acts of social justice as part of (but not the whole of) their definition of God's Kingdom. So, in their eyes, to participate with others in these acts would be a participate in God's Kingdom, at least in part."

So what exactly are the Emergent leaders referring to when they talk about the "Kingdom of God?" Participating with others in social justice is obtuse and incongruent with Scripture. But then again, Scripture is secondary, right?

[Joe Kennedy]

Oh, and while I don't think "Christianity" has much or anything to learn, I remind people that we hold the Scriptures in the highest regard, but we do not worship them. They are not the fourth part of the Trinity. I only bring that up to remind us that while nobody can teach Christianity anything, we can definitely learn a lot about how to practice it through the lives and actions of people of other religions. The Muslim's complete and utter dedication to Allah and sense of community/family are things we could definitely pick up on a little more. My Islam professor spent 34 years as a M over there and often referred to himself as a "true Muslim" because he was one who submitted to the One true God, whose Son was Jesus. He adopted their prayer times, their discipline. I think we can all learn things from other religions. It's just a matter of what, and whether it's good. (In other words, YES, it IS possible to find some truths in other religions, and when we do, it's good to claim them.)

[Justin Taylor]

Steve,

Do you think one of the assumptions operating here is that all social work done by religious people is "kingdom work"? (E.g., Jews building community, Mormons helping the poor, etc). If so, I find it impossible to imagine the authors of the NT accepting such a proposal.

Justin

[Mike Noakes]

Exactly Joe Kennedy! I think that is where we as "christians" must do, observe whatever truth we find in others and recognize that the Holy Spitit has been at work a lot longer than we have (Rob Bell). It's like what Timmy said, all truth is God's truth. So true.

I think that this discussion has gotten somewhat sidetracked, but that's how all discussions go. Tony Jones emailed me and said that they WON'T be compromising the gospel and that they are discussing what practices they could learn from one another. Although I still remain hesitant, I also am kind of optimistic. I hope it all turns out for the glory of God...

Let's keep our eyes on the cross and on who died there and what it accomplished, and hopefully we'll see a bright future up ahead.

[Timmy]

So Joe, are you arguing that the Father of Jesus is the God of Islam (Timothy George)?

Secondly, what about truth claims which contradict or differ from Christianity? Are we to pick and choose those elements in other religions and ignore those that differ? If that is the case, then this would be wrong in both ends: it would be an insult to those who are true adherents of their religion, and it would detrimental to us to argue that Christianity is faith that is "evolving" and growing as we better understand other religions.

Also, I noticed D.A. Carson picked up on some of this before this event took place. In his critique of McClaren, Carson stated:

"McClaren repeatedly states that Christianity has committed its own shares of evils, so how can it pronounce on the evils of other religions? There is important insight, though I do find his standards of comparison quite skewed. My point here is simply that Christian claim that the revelation given them in Scripture, and supremely in the person and work of Christ, is wholly good. That Christians do not live up to this revelation is terribly shameful, something for which we must constantly ask forgiveness and which we should be constantly striving to overcome, even as we long for the consummation of the kingdom. (HERE) But insofar as other religions actually contradict the revelation of God, we claim that these religions are not true revelations at all. In other words, quite apart from whether any religion's adherents do or do not live up to their traditions, there is the question of whether or not the authoritative documents of those religions tell the truth. If they are encouraging the worship of a god or gods who in whole or in part are distanced from or contradictory to the God who is there (to use the famous Schaefferism), is that not to be of concern to Christians who long to be faithful to revelation? McClaren ducks this issue by talking about how all sides have sinned. True--but are all the putative revelations equally true, equally right, equally good? If so, we have retreated into philosophical pluralism; if not, why not? When will we admit that truth claims cannot be ducked, even if they are not the claims to omniscient knowledge or absolute truth?" (136-137)

Carson's right. Truth claims cannot be overlooked. The retreat of philosophical pluralism is lurking at the door, and I am wondering, given what Christ has said, if he would even be allowed to be in the conversation.

[Mike Noakes]

Timmy,
Have you read emergents response to DA Carsons and others works? You'll find a response by Bolger here:

http://thebolgblog.typepad.com/thebolgblog/2005/05/d_a_carson_beco.html

Like you said, truth claims cannot be overlooked, but who has the absolute truth? Isn't it God? And who gives truth to ALL people? Isn't it God? So, when truth is found in another religion, freedom in Christ is the freedom to claim that truth. It is your truth, it is my truth BEACAUSE it is God's truth. Read Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis. If you live on-campus, we could meet sometime and I could let you borrow it.

Christianity, as a practice, is evolving. That can't be denied. The reformation, which we are so big on here at SBTS, would never have come about if corruption in the catholic church had never occured. Also, with the reformation, the church began to be true to it's culture. Again. Although we are called out of sinful lifestyles and practices, we are not called to live in a bubble! Although God does not evolve, our culture does. And if we are to be true to our God, we must confront the changes of the times.

I believe Christ would have been part of the conversation, but I also think he would have still called out 12 no-good-enoughs and revolutionized the way we think about God, life, beauty, and truth.

That is what he did back then, and it's my pryer that he does it again. And I thinkt he emerging movement/conversation will be a part of that.

[rawbbie]

I think Christianity and Christians can learn a lot from other religions, especially Jews. For one, we have learned everything about faith from Jews. From Abraham to Paul, almost all of the bible is Jewish. To reject conversation with or about Jews, is to reject any conversation of scripture. If Christians want to fully reject all religions other than their own they are kidding themselves because Christianity is just the most recent stone on God's path to our salvation.

Further more, Christianity doesn't have it all figured out. The number one thing Christ preached against was arrogant religiousity, not homosexuality, or abortion, as some would have us think. We have committed horrible atrocities in the name of Christ or justified them using scripture (slavery, witch burnings, crusades, inquisitions). Instead of saying "we don't need anything, we have THE BIBLE," we should be humbly Shining as light for the world.

[Joe Kennedy]

Hey Timmy,

Nah. I wouldn't argue that the god of Islam is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But I'd say that if they are THAT dedicated to a god who does not exist, then we can learn a little bit from that. My professor referred to himself as a True Muslim. Muslim means "one who submits." In particular, one who submits to God. He was doing what Paul did with the monument to the unknown god.

[Joe Kennedy]

OK, I think it's time to get back on point, though. It's good to discuss whether we can learn things from other "religions."

The issue at hand is whether we as followers of Christ should be about the business of planting synagogues that do not exalt Christ.

[Scot McKnight]

Steve,
Thanks again. I saw this at Doug's site and thought I might do something. You're doing a good job here, and this is a great discussion, and I agree with lots of things being said, but I suggest in a rather longish post at my site (soon) that this is a newspaper report after all, a hype and hope statement, and maybe we ought to wait to see what is happening.

On the other hand, too many of us (Evangelicals) make a false dichotomy between social justice and spiritual justification. God's will is God's will -- always and everywhere. And there is no such thing as "social" justice for justice is only what God says it is to be (and that is rooted in who God is).

[Jon]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Granted one cannot simply fuse Christianity and Judaism, but that doesn't mean all cooperation is impossible. It is also true that learning more about others' faiths can lead to a deeper appreciation of Christianity. It helps us remember what we should already know, so to speak.

Concerning work for social justice, I'm pretty sure the non-Christians wouldn't view it as Kingdom work. I also note, however, that in the parable of the sheep and the goats the sheep seem rather surprised to hear that they have been serving Jesus. Make of that what you will.

Jon

[Timmy]

Joe,
What Paul was doing in Acts 17 was preaching Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 17:18) - a resurrection which they denied took place. He was not positively accepting towards the men of Athens, lest why whould it say that he "was provoked" because the city was "full of idols." Paul did not call himself a fellow Epicurean stoic. He was a "babbler" in their eyes who professed Jesus Christ alone as Lord of all. For a Christian in a Muslim context to call themselves or be called "a true Muslim" is deceitful. If he is a Christian, he is a Christian in name and in action. One cannot be a true Muslim and be a true Christian in the same sense, even if he works in a different cultural context.

Rawbbie,
The point is not having a conversation with Jews. I have conversations with all kinds of people - atheists, Mormons, Jews, etc. But within the context of Emergent, "conversation" is a loaded term which has more connotation than simply having a "conversation."
You said, "Christianity is just the most recent stone on God's path to our salvation." Really? So what's the next stone? Buddhism? Taoism? Atheism? If that is the case, Christians are in deep trouble. Christianity is neither a novelty item nor one of many paths to God.
I am not simply stating "we just have the Bible" and that setles it. But I am saying that the boundaries we should mark in Christianity should be determined by God's Word. The Bible should not be the footnote to our argument but the very fountain through which our pen writes. If we measure Christianity on mere sentimentality or moral superiority, we have chosen the wrong measuring stick. Christians have done some atrocious things in the past (as Carson explains), but that does surplant the fact that if Christianity is true, other religions necessarily must be false.

[Joe Kennedy]

Timmy:

I disagree. And so would Dr. Dunn. If Muslim means one who submits to God, then by all means, Dr. Dunn was one who submits to God. He even explained to those who asked if he was Muslim that he was a follower of Jesus. Usually that ended the discussion and the Muslim would leave immediately or refuse to converse further. But on occasion he used that to lead into the gospel. I see nothing wrong with that, and I see no deceit. He wasn't calling himself an Arab. He was calling himself "one who submits."

If you want to continue discussing this, email me. I don't want to continue this discussion that is pretty off-point now on Steve's blog.

[Mike Noakes]

It is true, Christianity is the most recent stone on God's path to our salvation. How were people in the OT justified? By Grace thru Faith (you can add alone if you want to). How were people in the NT justified? the same way as the Jews. We are the covenant people of God, all of us. But, as Paul said to Timothy, there is one mediator. And He isn't going to share his position with Allah.

[Keith]

Timmy,

I mean this with a friendly tone: you seem to read everyone in the worst possible light. I have found that it is usually more correct to read people under the assumption that they are just as faithful as you are, just as serious as you are, and just as concerned about following Christ as you are until you can definitely prove otherwise. I get the feeling from your posts that you tend to jump to the worst possible motives, worst possible conclusions, and worst possible implications of people's words and actions. To me, that's not a helpful way to engage in discussions with your fellow Christians, because more often than not, it distorts and misrepresents the beliefs of the people you're discussing with.

Again, please read that in the friendly tone in which it was written.

***
Joe, when you said, "The issue at hand is whether we as followers of Christ should be about the business of planting synagogues that do not exalt Christ," I didn't follow where you got that from the article. That seems to be reading a lot of action into what seems to me to be a lot of talk. I didn't read anything about Emergent planging synagogues, but rather only about a few leaders in Emergent learning from the experience from those who do. Feel free to set me right on where I'm missing something.

***
Timmy said, "Those emerging talk about "a third way." This is nothing new of course, but it is interesting to see that this "third way" would rather gloss over the idea of Christianity as "the only way.'"

If you read Tony's "third way," in the context of the sentence he used it in, he is referring to "the polarities of left and right," i.e., the battles between conservatives and liberals that dominated the 20th century. To read his use of the "third way" as if it was meant to describe some new blend of religion between Judaism and Christianity is to take his words totally out of context. He's talking about finding ways to be Christian that moves beyond the left-right mindset, which tends only to divide and polarize, rather than glorify God. That is nothing new with Emergent. Hans Frei, the Yale theologian who coined the term "generous orthodoxy," was doing that kind of work decades before Emergent was around. Quite frankly, it's something we should all be about. If we revel in the left-right polarity, or even accept it as necessary, then I think we're in some sense betraying at least part of what the Kingdom of God is all about.

[Joe Kennedy]

Keith,

Read my post over at my blog. I think it'd be easier than me copying and pasting over here. Saves space and such.

Here's the link.

Emergent and Kingdom Work...

[Steve McCoy]

Keith, I just preached on John 3:1-15 on seeing/entering the Kingdom of God. Jesus said we can't see/enter it unless we are born again. I'll take that definition of God's Kingdom. They should take Kingdom this way too. It's in the Bible. Can we agree at that point?

[Timmy]

Keith,
I realize that what I have said is contrary to the majority of the people posting here. I have no intention of painting the issue in the worst possible light, but I also don't think that this issue can pass without a healthy, legitimate criticism.
Being conversation-friendly is being able to discuss differences and refine our positions, not talking to people who only agree with us. I apologize, if in what I have said, I have disagreed in the wrong way. I am all about a friendly tone in dialogue. What concerns me is the idea of pervading ambiguity where God has spoken clearly. What is not helpful is to be in conversation with only those who will reply back with a hearty "Amen!" I do not disagree for the sake of disagreement, as I have tried to explain with my comments. What we can see here is that there are serious issues being discussed here which are too important to ignore. I am not asking anyone to agree with me. I am only attempting to provide a different perspective on the issues. Consider me an "outsider" peeping in. Thanks for the comments, as I hope to better understand the pulse of the Emergent heartbeat.

[Keith]

Timmy, no need to apologize. I didn't think you were meaning to be harsh intentionally--it just came across that way. I understand your motivations, and I appreciate them.

***
Steve, I would agree with you that to enter into the Kingdom of God, you need to be a Christian. However, from what I have heard in person and read from some leaders in Emergent, I think that they have a broader definition of the activities of God's Kingdom than you or I do, so that they believe that one can engage in activies that are part of the Kingdom of God and not be a Christian.

My example in my first comment of McLaren's illustration about the river and the city is an example of how they might view kingdom work. If part of the Kingdom of God is for the people of that city have clean water to drink, then it would be possible for someone to participate in God's dream for that city (kingdom work) and not be a Christian.

I think disagreement on how broad or narrow one defines the activities of the Kingdom of God can happen without necessarily requiring disagreement on whether or not Christ is the way to salvation. To put it another way, I think that one can, without contradiction, believe that a non-Christian can engage in acts that are part of God's dream for the world and also believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. Do I hold that view? No. Do you? No. But, from what I understand, I think that at least some of the leaders of Emergent do, and I think that when we're criticizing their use of certain words, we have to be clear on what meaning those words carry for them. Otherwise, we misunderstand them, and we may be making inaccurate judgments about them.

So, on their own terms, when they were talking aboug God's Kingdom, I don't think they necessarily meant it to intrude on the exclusivity of Christ for salvation. At least, that's not how I read it, and that's why it didn't set off any alarm bells for me. Whether I'm right or not would take some explantion by them. And whether or not their view of the Kingdom of God is biblical is another debate. They undoubtely read scripture under a different hermeneutic than we do, and they would probably argue that the definion of the Kingdom in John 3 is not exhaustive of the full meaning of the Kingdom of God as presented in the entirety of scripture. I think you could make a fair argument for that view, although I'm not sure I'd make it.

[JACK]

"To put it another way, I think that one can, without contradiction, believe that a non-Christian can engage in acts that are part of God's dream for the world and also believe that Christ is the only way to salvation."

I must admit I'm shocked that this isn't a readily accepted idea or is seen in the least way as controversial. Any of you familiar with the concepts of natural law?

[Matt]

I appreciate what Jack and Keith are saying, but this whole thing reminds me of when Don Miller's webiste once said that Moveon.org, Amnesty International, the ACLU and Greenpeace are doing God's work. They may (or may not) be doing good work, but God's work? Really?

On some level, I appreciate all of this, but there are so many groups doing charitable work and preaching the Gospel at the same time...why not support them?

[JM]

This joint effort of emergent and synagogues reminds be of a lefty version of "let's promote a Judeo-Christian ethic" of the right. Instead of "kingdom work" it's called restoring America back to God's country.
American Alliance of Jews and Christians

it also seems similar to Baptist press publishing a Michael Medved article promoting his new book or running Daniel Pipes articles.

maybe both groups are selling out the gospel or maybe both groups need to trim back the rhetoric or whatever...

[Matt]

JM: Maybe it's splitting hairs, but there is a difference between working together and working together while declaring that you are doing the Lord's work.

I doubt very seriously that Steve or anyone else believes that McLaren and others can't join with Jews to help the poor. I support conservatives working with Jews on morality issues. I cease support however when that work is proclaimed to be Kingdom work.

[Steve McCoy]

Matt, exactly.

[Joe Kennedy]

That's all I've been saying. Well summarized, Matt.

[JACK]

Someone will have to help me on this one -- If A is something God desires (e.g., feeding the poor), how is it "Kingdom" work if a Christian does it, but not if a non-Christian does it. Are all of you seriously telling me that you have never had an experience of God using a non-Christian to make His presence known?

[JM]

maybe the Johnny Cash/U2 song captures the sentiment(maybe or maybe not)

I stopped outside a church house
Where the citizens like to sit
They say they want the kingdom
But they don't want God in it

especially true when you ID God as the Father of the LORD Jesus Christ. i think somebody already said that above, but I had to bring Cash into the discussion. It's been popular in the past week or 2 :)

[Paul Lamey]

Paul C. said, "...When it comes to adherents of Judaism, I think they may be able to teach us a lot about our own faith."

It seems the Apostle Paul would disagree with such a notion. The only time "Judaism" is referenced anywhere by name is Gal. 1:13-14 where Paul says it(Judaism) was the basis for his persecution of the church. Only after grace did he leave his former life in "Judaism" (Gal. 1:15).

I think some are confusing "learning from Judaism" with "learning from the OT"...the two are not the same.

[Keith]

Maybe it's splitting hairs, but there is a difference between working together and working together while declaring that you are doing the Lord's work....I support conservatives working with Jews on morality issues. I cease support however when that work is proclaimed to be Kingdom work.

It's hard to read tone in a comment, so let me just preface this comment by saying that it's in a friendly tone. It's addressed to those who find the above statement reflective of their views.

To be honest, the quote above really doesn't make sense to me, partly because of the point that Jack made, and partly because I don't think it even applies as a valid criticism of the Emergent leaders relationship with the Jewish leaders as presented in the article. I'll raise two points: one a question, and the other a concern.

First, a question: I don't understand how you can coherently argue that (a) McLaren and a Jew working together to feed the poor is a good thing; (b) McLaren and a Jew working together to feed the poor while calling it "the Lord's work/Kingdom work" is a bad thing. The act is the same, but only the description is different. Does the Godly act of feeding the poor become a sinful act solely on the basis of how you describe it or understand it? If so, I don't understand that kind of Christian ethics. And if you're not willing to say that (b) is sinful, then what is the problem with it, other than a disagreement over semantics? I would really like to understand the theological reasoning behind the distinction that you're drawing between the righteousness or unrighteousness of this single act.

Second, a concern: I think the assertions that (1) you support Christians and Jews working together on morality issues while (2) you don't support that work if it's called "kingdom work" only makes sense if you define "kingdom work" in a specific way, i.e., such as by Steve's criteria of John 3, that only those who are born again can see/enter the Kingdom of God. Obviously, Jews cant' be involved in that apart from salvation in Christ. But, from my knowledge of what they believe, the Emergent leaders involved in these discussions have a different definition of "Kingdom work" that includes the kind of activites that you find acceptable in (1)--morality and social justice issues. Thus, rightly or wrongly, they use the label "Kingdom work" to describe these acts that you agree that both Jews and Chrsitians can pariticpate in.

My concern is this: that when the Emergent leaders say that they're doing "Kingdom work" with Jews, they're mean the activities that you find acceptable in (1). You're leveling a charge against them that they're denying the exclusivity of Christ, but that is based upon the idea that when they mean "Kingdom work," they mean the same thing as you do--the John 3 definition. So, in short, my concern is that you're charging them for denying the exclusivity of Christ and "Kingdom work" for merely participating in the same kinds of activities with Jews that you would find acceptable. Thus, you might break fellowship with them--or declare them pluralists or whatever--for doing something that you yourself would support. The only distinction is that they call it by the wrong name! If that's the case, a disagreement over the use of terms seems to me to be more of a misunderstanding over semantics or terminology than it is about theology. And it certainly doesn't seem to me to be worth breaking fellowship over--or even worth bashing them on the blog. I hope the criticisms being leveled at Emergent leaders in this instance aren't based on a misrepresentation of what they're saying.

[Scott M]

I've been reading the thread and related articles while trying to think of a way to articulate my thoughts clearly and in a way that wouldn't be misunderstood. I haven't found one, so I guess I will just say I share the bemusement of Jack and Keith. This "hill to die on" seems to have emerged out of thin air.

[Timmy]

Back to the kingdom language used in the social work, would it not be fair to say that to do kingdom work that one must first be a part of the kingdom? That would seem to be an ontological necessity. But to enter the kingdom, one must be born again by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is unbiblical to say that anyone not "of" the kingdom can do/advance kingdom work. As Matt has already mentioned, why do we have to think that the kingdom work has to be done outside the reign of Christ?

Again, I might be wrong on this, but I think that there is this false dichotomy between God's work (missio dei) and the work of the church. God has chosen to accomplish his work through his people, inaugurated in His Son's life, death, and resurrection. The promises that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it is true, and the very one to ensure that the kingdom work is going to be done is none other than God himself - through his people.

Also, much of this reminds me of nothing more than a social gospel packaged in liberation theology. If I am wrong, can someone please clue me in? I truly believe that conservative Christians, evangelicals, and everyone else should be actively involved in social work, in being salt and light. But our work is not just social. It is spiritual. I believe John Stott addressed balancing this in his book Christian Mission in the Modern World (Downer's Grove: InterVarsity, 1975). I highly recommend it regarding this discussion.

[david]

it seems that this whole thing is making big ripples on the "conservative" end of the emerging spectrum. guys like steve and bob are raising questions and finding themselves in a crossfire of answers.

it'd be great if the guys who were quoted in this article would acknowledge the confusion being caused and help everyone out by clarifying what they were saying...

is this possible?

[Steve McCoy]

Keith, so you aren't an "Emergent apologist," eh? :)

You said, "I don't understand how you can coherently argue that (a) McLaren and a Jew working together to feed the poor is a good thing; (b) McLaren and a Jew working together to feed the poor while calling it "the Lord's work/Kingdom work" is a bad thing. The act is the same, but only the description is different."

Because Kingdom work is never merely the physical. McKnight has done much to encourage the EC holistic approach to faith, and I think that's biblical. While some evangelicals have divorced justice and mercy from ministry (justice isn't central enough), I think the approach in the post we are discussing is creating the same divorce in the opposite direction (justice is too central). Doing the physical alone is not Kingdom work.

Plus, the physical alone is not God-glorifying. We serve NOT for ourselves, but for the name of someone else. He is to be the continual focus of our work and we should seek His glory (not ours) as we do it. An act of feeding the hungry is good, and act of feeding the hungry in the name of Jesus is Kingdom work.

[JM]

In light of this subject matter I went and reviewed the PCUSA's statement A Theological Understanding of the Relationship between Jews and Christians

Point 7 discusses "kingdom". I wouldn't be surprised if Emergent shares the PCUSA's understanding. I think it explains how some can speak of kingdom work involving both Jews and Christians. Whether, one agrees with the statement is another issue.

"Jews still await the kingdom which the prophets foretold. Some look for a Messianic Age
in which God’s heavenly reign will be ushered in upon the earth. Christians proclaim the good
news that in Christ “the Kingdom of God is at hand,” yet, we, too, wait in hope for the
consummation of the redemption of all things in God. Though the waiting of Jews and Christians
is significantly different on account of our differing perception of Jesus, nonetheless, we both
wait with eager longing for the fulfillment of God’s gracious reign upon the earth—the kingdom
of righteousness and peace foretold by the prophets. We are in this sense partners in waiting.
Both Christians and Jews are called to wait and to hope in God. While we wait, Jews and
Christians are called to the service of God in the world. However that service may differ, the
vocation of each shares at least these elements: a striving to realize the word of the prophets, an
attempt to remain sensitive to the dimension of the holy, an effort to encourage the life of the
mind, and a ceaseless activity in the cause of justice and peace."

[Alex]

A lot of the discussion here seems to rest on semantics. It is entirely possible that McLaren, Tony Jones, and others are just being sloppy, vague, or even naive in their language, in the way they throw around terms like "kingdom work."

Of course they may be using those words with precision and purpose, raising the significant issues that Steve is addressing. And for what its worth, they do seem to be significant issues. Is the EC moving towards a position that the exclusivity of Christ is compromised in the name of social justice? (Please don't hear me saying social justice is unimportant... but DO hear me saying that the gospel is moreso).

It seems to me that what we believe about God's kingdom is teribly, terribly important.

[Keith]

Keith, so you aren't an "Emergent apologist," eh? :)

Not intentionally! I have my own problems with Emergent and won't identifiy with the movement, although I'm sympathetic. In this case, I just see a bunch of guys getting beat up on a dozen blogs for what I perceive to be a misunderstanding and an overreaction. The Good Samaritan in me wants to address that, and your blog is one of the few places where dissenting opinions are treated respectfully. Thanks for the response to my question.

A lot of the discussion here seems to rest on semantics. It is entirely possible that McLaren, Tony Jones, and others are just being sloppy, vague, or even naive in their language, in the way they throw around terms like "kingdom work."

I think that's preciesely the problem, and what misunderstandings and misperceptions there are of their views are largely their own fault.

[Steve McCoy]

Tony and I (with others) have been talking at Jesus Creed.

[JACK]

I went back to the original article, because I honestly cannot get a handle on what most upsets people about it. I thought it worth noting that the press release includes only one reference to "kingdom" in this sentence:

"It's with great joy and promise that we partner with the leaders of S3K to talk about the future and God's Kingdom."

I just don't see how the sinister interpretations are being reached off of that. Now, maybe the rest of you know the players better than me, and thus are rightly bringing other evidence to bear. But I haven't heard that. What I've heard (as an outsider) is a phrase, "kingdom work", bantered about that somehow either makes an action by a non-Christian bad when by a Christian it would be good or makes an act by a Christian have something extra to what it would just have if performed by a non-Christian. Steve's definition defines "kingdom work" from the perspective of man and presupposes that one must be a Christian to be doing it, that the intent of doing it for Christ is what transforms the work into "kingdom work". I suppose I understand where he is coming from. However, isn't it also important to realize what the work is about, namely the "kingdom of God", "kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of Christ", all phrases that have been used slightly differently throughout history. Those define, I think, the kingdom itself and not just our work, and so are from God's perspective, and thus have an element of mystery to them. From that perspective, it seems presumptuous to say that a human being, created in the image of God, somehow must first accept Christ before he can do anything pleasing to God, or that would serve God's kingdom. My experience suggests that often such works can be a preparation for the non-Christian to receive the Gospel.

I wonder if there is also a difference in how we are viewing the acts themselves. I am not seeing them as means to another end. Of course, the charity of a Christian may be a witness that leads a non-Christian to encounter Christ, which is glorious! But the charity itself is a good thing and I see no reason (particularly given the beatitudes) to suggest that it is somehow not in service of God's kingdom.

Enough of my musings. I don't claim any real expertise in understanding these things. I'll be honest, part of what made me react to this thread the way I have is that something made me nervous about how Judaism was being described in this thread. In no way do I deny the unique and universal nature of the salvation offered to us through Jesus Christ. But, because of that, I cannot deny the facts of how that salvation came to be offered to us, namely the circumstances of the Incarnation and the history of God with His chosen people. And I cannot, given Paul's writings in Romans, just think that since Christ's birth their status as His chosen people is really an irrelevance. These are people not worshipping some sun god, but are waiting for the Mesiah. It is a mystery, as Paul writes, as to why they did not accept Him. But as with so much of the history of God captured in the OT, the act of the elder led to the blessing being passed on to the younger son (us gentiles) and for that we should be grateful.

[Scot McKnight]

Steve,
You've created a firestorm: 58 comments is lots of chat.

I'm about to call in to a conference call with the Emergent leaders to plan our time for the National Pastor's Convention. When I get back, I'll try to read through the comments since last night (when I read it all the way through).

[Timmy]

I know that evangelicals do not have the best track record on the matters of social concern, but there has been a rise in interest in these matters, especially among the younger generation of evangelicals. Also, I wonder if anyone has heard of Ronald J. Sider and the assocation called Evangelicals for Social Action. Last year I read his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005) and would recommend it as well. Just last week, I picked up another one of his books called Good News and Good Works (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993). Like Stott, the Sider argues that evangelism should be combined with social action and concern. In the Appendix he addresses the question, "Is Social Justice Part of Salvation?" I think his words would be relevant to the topic.

Alex said:
A lot of the discussion here seems to rest on semantics. It is entirely possible that McLaren, Tony Jones, and others are just being sloppy, vague, or even naive in their language, in the way they throw around terms like "kingdom work."

Do you think that McLaren and Jones, being the distinguished and accomplished leaders that they are, would like writings to be understood as "sloppy, vague, and naive?" I don't know these men, but I would venture to say that they would rather not have such characteristics attributed to their writings. Maybe they will give clarification.

Can we take the idea of social action to the reduction of absurdity? Can any righteous deed done be considered as included in God's kingdom? What I am hearing is that some good works are included in God's kingdom because it correlates to the nature of God (God of justice). But if that is the case, then why shouldn't all good works be a part of God's kingdom? If, for instance, a Wiccan offers their magic to cure a disease in the jungles of the Amazon, is that to be considered a part of God's kingdom? Surely not! But where do you draw the line? Who can arbitrarily determine which good works are or are not a part of God's kingdom? Surely not you or I.

I agree that some of the problem may be semantics, but clearly that is not the ONLY problem. To think so would be like throwing a Care-Bear band-aid over a deadly disease thinking that a superificial fix would solve the problem. That would be an injustice to justice.

[JACK]

"If, for instance, a Wiccan offers their magic to cure a disease in the jungles of the Amazon, is that to be considered a part of God's kingdom?"

But that's a false comparison, Timmy. An apt comparison would be a Christian offering food to the hungry by setting up a soup kitchen and doing so because he wants to bring glory to Christ, and a Jew offering food to the hungry by setting up a soup kitchen because of some desire to serve the God of Abraham.

Your example is of someone choosing impermissible means (witchcraft) to try and accomplish a good end.

[JACK]

If it isn't clear, my point is, that if the acts are the same, and that you consider the act as performed by the Christian to be "kingdom work", the only distinguishing factor you are making in determining whether it serve's God's kingdom is in the status of the person performing the act. Your Wiccan example introduces another variable by changing the nature of the act performed.

[Timmy]

The example was not meant to be a comparison. I asked the quesiton, "Can we take the idea of social action to the reduction of absurdity?" I am glad to hear that you believe that this idea is a false comparison. It wasn't mean to be (to me it was absurd).

The Wiccan act was an "a righteous act" in that it removed a deadly disease. The nature of the act, albeit feeding the poor or curing someone of the disease, has the same telos. The Wiccan was doing it in the name of Wicca just as the Jew was doing it in the name of the God of Abraham. So if a Muslim does serves the hungry in the name of Allah, is he doing Kingdom work? Where do you draw the line???

The Bible draws the line in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who, by the way, thought it more than just doing social action. He did not die because people were poor, needy, or had AIDS. No, it was a much more lethal disease. He died for sinners. It was a spiritual redemption for people who were not only going to die physically but were already dead spiritually. While social action and concern show the love and compassion of Christ, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17). The God-ordained means of advancing the Kingdom of God is through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We can feed a poor man a loaf of bread, and he will still go to hell. Give the man the Bread of Life, and his soul will be satisfied everlastingly. Should we give both breads? Absolutely! But both find their locus in Jesus the Messiah.

[Paul C.]

Hi Everybody,

Once again, for the sake of space I posted my thoughts on this topic on my blog. Many Perspectives

Peace,
Paul

[JACK]

Timmy,

A couple of thoughts. First, you need to understand that the phrase "kingdom work" has no meaning to me. I'm sure if I understood it, I could give you a phrase from my own tradition that might come close to representing it. But as things stand, I have yet to see a clear explanation of what it means, so it's a roadblock for now for me in this conversation.

I did draw a line, but you rejected it. I said that I most interested in why a difference when the act was the same and that all that differed was the status of the person (and the resulting distinction n the likely expression of their intent). I drew the line at your Wiccan example to suggest that I would not include that in the concept of "kingdom work" (as best as I understand it) because of the illicit nature of the means, despite the desired end. Your response, which I will charitably assume stems from an overzealous desire to defend the notion that express intent of glorifying Christ is necessary to serve God's kingdom, was to reject that the means has anything to do with the rightousnes of an act! I seriously suggest you re-examine that concept.

[JACK]

And, Timmy, just to show that we don't differ that much, I agree with this part of what you wrote:

"We can feed a poor man a loaf of bread, and he will still go to hell. Give the man the Bread of Life, and his soul will be satisfied everlastingly. Should we give both breads? Absolutely! But both find their locus in Jesus the Messiah."

Where we differ seems to be in that you define "kingdom work" as being just about winning converts. I'm not trying to downplay that one bit, but am suggesting a broader understanding that I don't think is inconsistent with the faith. Similarly, this broader understanding allows me to recognize that there are ways in which things find their meaning and root in Christ that are frankly mysterious to me and beyond my understanding. I don't think anyone is trying to equate giving someone a loaf of bread with expressly preaching the Gospel to that person.

[Timmy]

Jack,

I am encouraged to hear that we can find agreement. As I have read around the blogoshere, I have been accused of being anti-semitic and other variant things just because I am bringing a different perspective or "paradigm." One of the things I have noticed and appreciate about Steve's blog is widely read across the theological spectrum (However, I am beginning to wonder where the evangelicals are).

As far as "kingdom work" terminology, I really don't have a clear working term to use in regards to the idea being referenced. Certainly, I am emphasizing the conversion of souls, but I am also recognizing the importance of other aspects as expressed in Matt 25 "unto the least of these" and so on. There have been many contemporary understandings of what "the kingdom of God means. For instance, Albrecht Ritschl argued that the kingdom of God was primarily a call to live moral lives as individuals (Protestant Liberalism); Walter Rauschenbush argued that it was a call to transform the present social and political oders to be conformed to God's moral will (social gospel); and there are others who wrestled with the "already/not yet" tension (Gordon Ladd et al).

True, there is an element that is mysterious (Mark 4:26-32), but I am not so sure that the mysterousness can be equivocated as God working outside His Son and His church. And while you don't think that noone is trying to equate giving a loaf of bread as gospel, there are many who do (though maybe not expressed in this blog).

Oh, and I totally believe that "means" is important in the righteous act. But does the meaning of a Jew in the same act synonymous with the meaning of the Christian?

[Brad]

As far as serving people around us ... I suppose that were some of us walking down the road and see the good samaritan helping the beaten, bloodied man, we would walk past him, because we believe it is wrong to team up with an unbeliever in giving aid to another in need. I find it sad that we cite this parable so often but miss the point altogether.

As far as our view of Jews specifically, I would like for someone to show me where Biblically there is some indication that the nation of Israel is no longer set apart by God. When did we decide to edit out Romans 11?

[Hunter Beaumont]

Well gang, the good news is that we're not the first to wrestle with this issue. In his 1947 treatise "The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism," Carl Henry argued that fundamentalists were not very engaged in social issues because they did not have a coherent theology of Kingdom. He then anticipated this debate about how Christians should engage in "kingdom work" with those who are not Christians. He does not lay out an exhaustive framework but does provide some helpful starting points for thinking about this issue (especially in Chapter 7, "The Evangelical Formula of Protest"). One of his most lucid points...

"But the problem of social reform is more complicated when projected in great assemblies, often religious in nature, in which the membership is composed on inclusive lines, so that evangelicals, liberals, and humanists must act together. The evangelical voice in such a group cannot maintain silence when evils are condemned by others. But neither can it yield to a non-evangelical framework. Therefore, the path of evangelical action seems to be an eagerness to condemn all social evils, no less vigorously than any other group, and a determination (1)when evangelicals are in the majority, to couple such condemnation with the redemptive Christian message as the only true solution; (2) when evangelicals are in the minority, to express their opposition to evils in a 'formula of protest,' concurring heartily in the assault on social wrongs, but insisting upon the regenerative context as alone able to secure a permanent rectification of such wrongs. Thus evangelicals will take their stand against evils, and against it in the name of Jesus Christ the deliverer, both within their own groups and within other groups" (p.79).

[Timmy]

Most of you probably have already seen this, but last week's sermon by John Piper was on Romans 15:1-9, and in his exposition of verse 8, he said concerning Jesus:

The Son of God became incarnate as a Jew. Verse 8: “For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised.” Here’s the way Paul puts it in Galatians 4:4-5, “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.” That is, God sent his Son as Jew into the world. Don’t minimize the importance of the Jewish people in history. Jesus is the fulfillment of 2,000 years of Jewish history. To this very day the sheer existence of the Jewish people is a wonder. Anne Rice, the vampire novelist who recently turned from 30 years of atheism, said in her new book Christ the Lord, “I stumbled upon a mystery without a solution, a mystery so immense that I gave up trying to find an explanation because the whole mystery defied belief. The mystery was the survival of the Jews. . . . It was this mystery that drew me back to God.”1 Step #1, the eternal Son of God was incarnate as a Jew.

Again, he follows this by saying:

He came as Jew to serve the Jewish people. He came as a servant for the Jews. Verse 8: “For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised.” Jesus said in Mark 10:45, “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The primary service that Christ rendered for the Jews was to pay a ransom for the disobedience of the people so that they could be saved from the wrath of God. John 3:36 says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” Christ paid the ransom to free us from the wrath of God so that every Jewish person who believes on him would be saved.

You can read the entire sermon of course at DGM's website.

As has already been mentioned, Christians have no problems with loving one's neighbor alongside a Jew or doing an act of mercy, but the issue is whether or not the kingdom of God is inclusive to Jews who do not accept Jesus as their Messiah. I believe Piper explains clearly why Jesus was a servant to the circumcised (Jews) in that he "was to pay a ransom for the disobedience of the people so that they could be saved from the wrath of God." Every Jew can be saved from the wrath to come because of Jesus. My question is whether or not Jews today accept/believe this, in particular the group S3K?

[Mike Morrell]

Forgive me for repeating myself a bit, but this is the second-best discussion on this matter that I've come across, and the players on this thread are a bit different. So, my .02...

I read ’round and round this issue, and it’s interesting. When I first read the press release (via Emergent What?), I think I was alarmed. “Oh no! What’s happening?” But then I realized that most of that alarm was because of my recent “peer group” blog-wise. In the past year we have seen the debut of several anti-”emerging” blogs by people of the Dave Hunt/Hank Hanaegraaf “discernment ministry” heresy hunter ilk, and I think that, because we want to be open for correction and edification from these folks, our diplomacy has given way to buying in a bit to a lot of their fear-based outlook on theology and the church. At least, I think I’m prone to be susceptible. (Had this identical release been posted any time from the late 1990s to 2003, I don’t think it would have been so received within our own fold)

But then I took a step back and thought, Why on earth am I having this reaction? Just recognizing that it was a reaction was helpful.

I think of many other corners of the Body of Christ who have pursued relationships with Jewish people. Many conservative charismatic and evangelical groups have united with Jewish people for shared concerns, mainly relating to Israel. Some on both sides even call this relationship a “love affair.” Whatever we might think of such alliances, it seems to be working for the conservative Christian and Jewish groups; no one seems to have converting the other party as their primary concern.

Another Jewish-Christian encounter, more recent to me, was in reading Basil Penninton’s Centered Living. The forward was written by Rabbi Lawrence Kushner. This gave me pause at first. But as I read it honestly, it’s really just as good as the rest of the book, bringing excellent biblical and practical insight into the art of fellowship with God.

Is all of this “dangerous”? Is it too “fuzzy”? Two equally strong perspectives affirm themselves in my heart:

One is that I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, and I have placed my confidence in Him. Jesus has captured me with His vision of God, a beloved community, and a world transformed by His love. I believe that Jesus is savior of the world, and that we are removed from our divine estrangement by His life, teaching, death, resurrection, ascension and indwelling presence.

The second strata in my life is motivated by gospel concern: Eschatologically I am “postmillenial,” (I guess, sort of) meaning that I have a quiet confidence that Jesus’ sphere of influence will continue spreading ’till “the knowledge of the glory of the Lord covers the earth, as the waters cover the sea.” I am incurably filled with hope that God in Christ is drawing humanity toward Himself. I must admit that, though I consider myself evangelical I find Jesuit priest Teilhard de Chardin’s notion of creation moving toward Christ as the “Omega Point” of the cosmos quite compelling.

If it is indeed true that the world is moving toward the Way and Person of Jesus (and yes, I know we live in an “evil age,” and there is much depravity and rejection of God–I simply don’t see this chimera as having the last word) I see this happening on many levels: Christian communities are moving in freedom and grace, exhibiting a clear articulation in word and deed of the Good News of Christ’s redemption. Another aspect of God’s loving initiation, however, involves earth’s people discovering insights on their own, facets of the Kingdom that are “their idea.” Surely anyone versed in indigenous missional work is familiar with this phenomenon.

As a wannabe contemplative I see much in the kenotic self-emptying of Jesus (see Philippians 3) that is helpful for me and my church as a life-habit. A lot seems to originate for us in fellowshipping with God in the “thin spaces” of stillness and quiet. In this heart-stance before God and each other, we find the Spirit shaping us to become more generous in our orthodoxy and relationships, to become a truly more loving–and less reactionary–people.

When I see other people in other faiths moving toward greater surrender and openness as well, I cannot help but be glad, breathing a prayer that their tribe increase. Please understand, this is not the same as saying that their tribe=our tribe, but it is saying that–for the health of the world–I would that Sufi Muslims flourish; for Kabbalahists to win the Jewish soul, and open-hearted Buddhists to win the day. The same goes for the new integral spiritual movements with the likes of Ken Wilber and others. Not to name any names, but we are all familiar with other sects and flavors of the abovementioned faiths that are wreaking havoc with our world.

Maybe I’m a little different than some of my other evangelical friends in that I’ve kept my finger on the pulse of contemporary trends in other religious movements over the years. In recent times I’ve seen “emerging” trends in both Buddhism and Judaism, and wondered where this would go. (And what it would be like to have emerging Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses?) The emergence of like-hearted faiths gives me some hope of a world being permeated with the glory of God. I wouldn’t address these folks “brothers and sisters,” but I have to admit I feel a bit like kin to them…cousins perhaps!

I have wondered if anyone from our conversation would see points of resonance and begin looking for creative ways to initiate relationship and come alongside them. Now it seems that they have, and I can’t help but hope that their tribes increase. Whatever leads to more contemplative, loving, generous, peace-making and justice-engendering people will lead to Jesus Christ.

With that said, I still believe the concerns of some of our friends are quite valid. It does not do justice to our beliefs or the cosmologies or any other faith to pretend that we’re all the same or heading toward the same path. I don’t know if Jewish folks planting synagogues is anything like Christians planting churches. To assume such and easy transference of ideals and methodologies could lead to a kind of sterile pluralism that compromises distinctives–ours and theirs–and doesn’t do anyone any justice.

I hope that we can move toward a more honest pluralism where we don’t engage in linguistic games and can have honest, up-front relationships with each other. I have every hope that the Emergent Village and Synagogue 3000 folks will cultivate just this sort of relationship, and that no one will in the aftermath will feel used, trendy, or superficial.

[Joe Kennedy]

I asked Shawn Landres (S3K Director of Research) about the "institutions" part of the press release. This is what he had to say:

--- The individuals who are coming to the gathering -- both Jewish and Christian -- are congregational innvators, leaders in "out of the box" spiritual communities. The purpose of the meeting is to share experiences and to exchange ideas. "Building next-generation institutions" refers to current and future Jewish communities and Christian communities, not jointly-sponsored religious groups. ---

Maybe that clarifies a little bit. It did for me, although it didn't alleviate all my concerns.